2 of 23
2
Inside Job—9/11 Truth and other 9/11 Discussion (Merged)
Posted: 13 December 2007 09:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4095
Joined  2006-11-28

As odd and unusual a sensation as it is for me, I will add my voice to the majority here. I quickly got fed up with the threads on this topic because I see nothing substantive, only a “conspiracy of the gaps” logic behind the conspiracy argument. Anything that can’t be easily explained or seems improbable on the surface is taken as evidence for a coverup,. and whien the fact is explained, it is discarded and the next puzzling or improbable detail is trotted out as evidence. I think the fundamental logic behind the idea is bizarre and the pasimonious explanation, that things are as they seem in this case, is much more likley.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 11:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  27
Joined  2007-08-14

Lil, I’m sorry to say but… after the Katrina, the WMDs and the Mission Accomplished fiascos, I’m a little too skeptic of any conspiracy theory regarding that issue.

This government is way too incompetent to pull that off.

 Signature 

If the ignorance of nature gave birth to such a variety of gods, the knowledge of this nature is calculated to destroy them. La Système de la Nature, Baron d’Holbach (1723–1789)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 02:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

Anybody who wants a good laugh and proper bashing of this insensitive and misguided conspiracy theory should go here…

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 03:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08
George - 13 December 2007 08:15 AM
Pragmatic Naturalist - 12 December 2007 07:26 PM
retrospy - 12 December 2007 01:13 PM

While we are at it, let’s not rest until we get the truth on the Chupacabra, Sasquach, the Lockness Monster and the celestial teapot.

That is a bad analogy.

No, it’s not.

Yes. It is.

Sounds like an argument from the argument clinic:  “Simple gainsaying is not an argument.”  “Yes it is.”  “No it’s not.”  “Time’s up.”  “No it’s not.”

Just kidding.

George - 13 December 2007 08:15 AM

Some time ago I read an article in the New Scientist, where a psychologist talked about the correlation between a belief in the supernatural and the conspiracy theories.

I’m sure there’s a correlation there; no need to point to such a study.  But I guess I stand as a counter-example, since I don’t believe in any of that ridiculous BS.  But—call me crazy—I do think that the government or the CIA has been in on some pretty shady stuff (e.g. project BLUEBIRD).  I suppose you have to be some nit-witted fool not to believe everything the government tells you?

Conspiracy or not, the point is that there has not been an adequate investigation into the mechanism of the fall of WTC 7.  That’s the point upon which I side with lil. You can close your eyes and plug your ears, but that will not make the lack of a good explanation go away.

retrospy - 13 December 2007 08:00 AM


Exactly, it is hard to believe that the most incompetent president in history could pull of a stealthy diabolical plan of this magnitude.

ZeiS - 13 December 2007 11:33 AM

Lil, I’m sorry to say but… after the Katrina, the WMDs and the Mission Accomplished fiascos, I’m a little too skeptic of any conspiracy theory regarding that issue.

This government is way too incompetent to pull that off.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: what to us looks like incompetence and utter boobery, looks to them like a smashing success (emphasis on the word smashing).  For example: we’ve got a never-ending war, with billions going to Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.; we’ve got spying, torture, etc.  Take for example the following quote, from which the “reality-based community” got its coinage: 

Ron Suskind, quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:
The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” ... “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

It’s only from the perspective of the “reality based community”, of which we are a part, that these things look like incompetence.  Sometimes you’ve got to step outside your own world-view to get a better perspective on what is going on.  The inside-job thing may be improbable, but then who’s afraid of a little inquiry into how a building fell?  Science works by looking at things that are inadequately explained and trying to find a better explanation.  This is not, therefore, like Lochness or sasquatch, etc.: something in fact happened and these “mind-numbed” “truthers” want an explanation.  I for one will be satisfyied with a good explanation of WTC 7 if someone can provide it.

ticktock - 13 December 2007 02:09 PM

Anybody who wants a good laugh and proper bashing of this insensitive and misguided conspiracy theory should go here…
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

Right, I admit, most of it is BS.  Of course planes flew into buildings; to deny that is to go off the deep-end.  But I see no mention of WTC 7 in the ad hominem website you link—maybe you should have used Mad magazine as your authoritative source instead.

Actually, there is an association of architects and engineers who are pushing for the truth about 9/11.  Yes, that’s right, people who construct and demolish builing for a living who believe the towers were a controlled demolition. http://www.ae911truth.org/.  Personally, I don’t like to get into these conspiratorial threads—I’ll let the architects and demolition experts do their thing—but the malicious lampooning of lil and others is, I think, in poor taste.  Not to mention, the arguments made against her and others seem either like ad hominems or a like mere gainsaying.

I can already guess the response: “No it isn’t, you malodorous boob!”

[ Edited: 13 December 2007 03:13 PM by Pragmatic Naturalist ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
Pragmatic Naturalist - 13 December 2007 03:11 PM
George - 13 December 2007 08:15 AM
Pragmatic Naturalist - 12 December 2007 07:26 PM
retrospy - 12 December 2007 01:13 PM

While we are at it, let’s not rest until we get the truth on the Chupacabra, Sasquach, the Lockness Monster and the celestial teapot.

That is a bad analogy.

No, it’s not.

Yes. It is.

No, it isn’t. LOL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 03:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08
George - 13 December 2007 03:14 PM
Pragmatic Naturalist - 13 December 2007 03:11 PM
George - 13 December 2007 08:15 AM
Pragmatic Naturalist - 12 December 2007 07:26 PM
retrospy - 12 December 2007 01:13 PM

While we are at it, let’s not rest until we get the truth on the Chupacabra, Sasquach, the Lockness Monster and the celestial teapot.

That is a bad analogy.

No, it’s not.

Yes. It is.

No, it isn’t. LOL

Yes, it is.

Time’s up!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 05:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-07-05

My problem is with chasing after theories about perps and yelling “false flag” and “inside job” without even settling what happened.

Since it is impossible to design and build a 110 story skyscraper without figuring out how much steel and concrete to put on every level of the building, to expect people to believe an airliner could knock any skyscraper level to the ground in less than 2 hours without even being told how many tons of steel were on the impact floors is absurd.

How so many “intelligent” people seem to manage that is beyond me.

And then they have the nerve to criticize theists.

The theists don’t have video tapes of their miracles.  LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hblla0DYmZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang

psik

[ Edited: 14 December 2007 07:33 PM by psikeyhackr ]
 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

maybe you should have used Mad magazine as your authoritative source instead.

The fact that a satirical web site is able to easily point out the stupidity of conspiracy theorists who believe a teenager’s fictional web “documentary” should have already shut you up, but you’re too stubborn for that.  Did you notice in the Cracked “ad hominem” * that the point of the article was not to debunk your pet conspiracy theory?  It was just to clue you in that the foundation of your theory, your entry into this fascinating world of “inside job”, was a punk kid who doesn’t even believe his own arguments?

I find it hilarious that you mock my non-argument from a non-authority, while you trot out your unstated arguments from random unverifiable authorities.  What about the millions of authorities on the subject who haven’t questioned the events of that day?  What about the experts at NIST and Popular Mechanics (actual authorities who actually investigated the actual events) who put to rest your failed arguments LONG AGO?  Oh, I forgot that they are in on the conspiracy too, right?  Oh, and… um… concrete… and um… thermate… and um…

Let’s face it, the facts don’t change your opinions.  Logic and Ockham’s Razor mean nothing in your fantasy delusion of an evil America.  So, we might as well just resort to making fun of you.

*Arguments in my satirical link that are not ad-hominems:
1. Multiple pictures of Pentagon plane wreckage
2. Reminders that there were witnesses who saw a plane crash and people who cleaned up wreckage
3. Evidence such as bent light poles that would be impossible to fake… especially with a cruise missile
4. How Dylan Avery edited sound bites so that they fit the conspiracy
5. Debunking the “American Free Press” screen grabs in Loose Change, and it’s arguments from nuts with a bias

Arguments in my satirical link that are ad-hominems
1. Imagined conversation with James Gandolfini… followed by a link to actual quote (not really an ad hominem, but…)

This author goes OUT OF HIS WAY to NOT ad hominem.  I mean, he could have called you a conspiracy nut, but he was kind and said conspiracy “buff”.  He could have called Dylan Avery a douche bag, but instead he called him a liar.  And you know what, he backed it up with ACTUAL FACTS.  Newsflash:  It isn’t an ad-hominem to point out that somebody is an idiot, a liar, or functionally retarded… if you actually prove why and how the person is wrong with actual facts.  It’s only an ad-hominem insult somebody in place of your argument.

Read the article again, and you’ll find plenty of arguments and few insults.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

[ Edited: 13 December 2007 06:45 PM by ticktock ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 07:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08
ticktock - 13 December 2007 06:19 PM

maybe you should have used Mad magazine as your authoritative source instead.

The fact that a satirical web site is able to easily point out the stupidity of conspiracy theorists who believe a teenager’s fictional web “documentary” should have already shut you up, but you’re too stubborn for that.  Did you notice in the Cracked “ad hominem” that the point of the article was not to debunk your pet conspiracy theory?  It was just to clue you in that the foundation of your theory, your entry into this fascinating world of “inside job”, was a punk kid who doesn’t even believe his own arguments?

I find it hilarious that you mock my non-argument from a non-authority, while you trot out your unstated arguments from random unverifiable authorities.  What about the millions of authorities on the subject who haven’t questioned the events of that day?  What about the experts at NIST and Popular Mechanics who put to rest your failed arguments LONG AGO?  Oh, I forgot that they are in on the conspiracy too, right?  Oh, and… um… concrete… and um… thermate… and um…

Let’s face it, the facts don’t change your opinions.  Logic and Ockham’s Razor mean nothing in your fantasy delusion of an evil America.  So, we might as well just resort to making fun of you.

You’re right, nothing ad hominem in there.  No need to get your panties in a bunch about it…that just leads me to believe that you are in on the conspiracy.  The evidence is clear.  I’m kidding of course.

I only have two things to say to your troll: 1. My “entry into this fascinating world of ‘inside job’,” was not some “punk kid who doesn’t even believe his own arguments.”  And if you think that some “punk kid” is the source of all the questions concerning what exactly happened that day, then you are seriously misguided.  2. If you think that asking questions about what happened—especially with regard to WTC 7—can be equated with a “fantasy delusion of an evil America”, then again you are misguided.  Asking tough questions is what makes America strong.  If you’ve got answers, rather than diatribes, then let’s hear them.  I suppose you believed every word that came out of Bill Clinton’s mouth…did you hate America?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08
ticktock - 13 December 2007 06:19 PM

 
*Arguments in my satirical link that are not ad-hominems:
1. Multiple pictures of Pentagon plane wreckage
2. Reminders that there were witnesses who saw a plane crash and people who cleaned up wreckage
3. Evidence such as bent light poles that would be impossible to fake… especially with a cruise missile
4. How Dylan Avery edited sound bites so that they fit the conspiracy
5. Debunking the “American Free Press” screen grabs in Loose Change, and it’s arguments from nuts with a bias

If you had been paying attention, rather than seething, you would have known that my point rests on none of those arguments.  It is confined to the curious collapse of WTC 7.  I’m sure its rather easy to pick on and debunk some “punk kid”, but then that wouldn’t be engaging any of the arguments that more logical people make.  That’s a bit more difficult, isn’t it?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
Rank
Total Posts:  10
Joined  2007-12-03

I’ve heard the conspiracy theories many times, and heard valid explanations (the “official story”) for each. Unless someone brings new and valid information, I can’t see treating the same tired theories with the same amount of interest I had the first time around.

 Signature 

“How does a scientist know what’s true? Well, all facts begin as dreams, dreamt by a wizard. If the wizard crosses the path of a scorned widow, then he shares it at the town council. Now it is a hypothesis, and it is time to drown the wizard. If he floats, he is an evil wizard, and must be burned alive. If he drowns, then the hypothesis is true! The king is told, and he consults with his menagerie of birds. If the king is satisfied, then it becomes an old-wives tale and science is advanced.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 08:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08
channel lox - 13 December 2007 07:35 PM

I’ve heard the conspiracy theories many times, and heard valid explanations (the “official story”) for each. Unless someone brings new and valid information, I can’t see treating the same tired theories with the same amount of interest I had the first time around.

I agree.  This is getting tiresome and repetitious (although it is a bit steamier than most threads).  Anyway, I’m gladly willing to quit this and all similar threads.  Nonetheless, to my mind, there still remains a blank spot where an explanation should be when it comes to the collapse of WTC 7.  Oh well.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2007 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  53
Joined  2007-05-20

I only have two things to say to your troll: 1. My “entry into this fascinating world of ‘inside job’,” was not some “punk kid who doesn’t even believe his own arguments.” And if you think that some “punk kid” is the source of all the questions concerning what exactly happened that day, then you are seriously misguided.  2. If you think that asking questions about what happened—especially with regard to WTC 7—can be equated with a “fantasy delusion of an evil America”, then again you are misguided.  Asking tough questions is what makes America strong.  If you’ve got answers, rather than diatribes, then let’s hear them.  I suppose you believed every word that came out of Bill Clinton’s mouth…did you hate America?

1.  Oh, so now the truthers are backing away from their favorite webumentary Loose Change?  Good, that’s a start.  It’s official that Loose Change is not a reliable source of info about 9/11.  I’m happy with that, and I’m ready to move on to the next a-hole who trots out lies about our own government.

2.  The truther tactic of “asking questions”.  There are two problems with that strategy.  1. You won’t accept the obvious answers.  And 2. The event was unprecedented and impossible to duplicate, so you’re asking questions that may never be answered.

There are other problems with asking your questions.  The first, is that they aren’t based on any quantifiable facts, the second is that they’ve all been debunked (researched), the third is that they start with the unstated premise that an “inside job” is actually possible.

I do have answers.  This is going to be hard for you to hear, though.  A terrorist organization that HATES AMERICA planned an attack by sending over a terrorist cell, who took flight lessons, planned their attack to the last detail, hijacked several planes by taking them by surprise and threatening to blow them up with a bomb, and then flew their planes into their targets.  WTC 7 collapsed because debris from the falling WTC towers hit it, causing an explosion in the fuel tanks, which started a fire that burned uncontrolled for hours causing the collapse of the already structurally weakened floors.

Here is the response I expect, some photos of smokey WTC 7, a clip of WTC owner saying “Pull it”, moltent metal that couldn’t possibly exist, and the BBC reporter announcing the collapse of building 7 too early.  But, none of that is proof, and none of that makes any logical sense.  Proof is a bomb, someone who claimed to plant a bomb, witnesses who saw a bomb, or a logical way for the building to be booby trapped with explosives and for nobody to see them before or after the collapse.  And, to say that “Pull it” is proof of a conspiracy is to implicate the fire department who lost the majority of their men in WTC1 and WTC2, which is an insult to them and their families.

And that is why I even care with my “seething diatribe”.  Because your innocent questions (aka conspiracy theory) are an insult to the survivors, to the people who died, and to our country.  So, some day you’ll realize that your hate of the U.S. government was misplaced in this instance, and you will feel some remorse for how you disrespected those people who died… and all of us.

But, that won’t be today.  Today you’ll jabber on about thermate and concrete and questions, and you won’t even stop to think how insulting it is.  Not one shred of actual evidence, and yet you still continue to believe Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and the tribe of liars that are making money and fame from the worst day in modern U.S. history.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2007 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  418
Joined  2007-07-19
Pragmatic Naturalist - 13 December 2007 03:11 PM

The inside-job thing may be improbable, but then who’s afraid of a little inquiry into how a building fell?  Science works by looking at things that are inadequately explained and trying to find a better explanation.  This is not, therefore, like Lochness or sasquatch, etc.: something in fact happened and these “mind-numbed” “truthers” want an explanation.  I for one will be satisfyied with a good explanation of WTC 7 if someone can provide it.

Apparently my point is confusing.  I have nothing against science or inquiry; I do have something against wasted funding.  Studies have already been done on 911; most conspiracy theorists just don’t accept them.  My analogy was that scientific inquiries have been done on the Lochness Monster as well, and conspiracy theorists don’t accept those either.  How much money and funding is necessary to satisfy conspiracy theorists?  Whatever money we could spend teaching people that buildings actually do fall down instead of over (again) can be better justified if spent on the education system, ending the war, medical research, feeding the hungry, etc.  I mean honestly you think that the government would plan to kill hundreds of people, but be concerned how the building would fall in a controlled demolition?  I hate to demoralize all the “Mulders” out there with my “Scully” outlook, but this case is closed and it is time to move on to the next investigation.

[ Edited: 14 December 2007 07:24 AM by retrospy ]
 Signature 

“It is the tension between creativity and skepticism that has produced the stunning and unexpected findings of science.” ~ Carl Sagan

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2007 09:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08
ticktock - 13 December 2007 10:39 PM

 
  Today you’ll jabber on about thermate and concrete and questions, and you won’t even stop to think how insulting it is.  Not one shred of actual evidence, and yet you still continue to believe Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and the tribe of liars that are making money and fame from the worst day in modern U.S. history.

 
I could care less about those “punks”.  But you’ve got to get a grip.  Regardless of how it happened, your buddy Dick Cheney sure is making a hell of a lot of money off of it too, as well as the death of our soldiers.  I find that worse than insulting, I find it un-American.  But your own hatred of the better half of America prevents you from seeing that.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 23
2
 
‹‹ Eveyone a humanist?      Your Work and You ››